Bar members, litigants, organizations, and the public were invited to comment back in July
The Supreme Court of British Columbia has published the feedback it received in line with a consultation to review the civil and family chambers’ practices and procedures.
The review is being conducted by the court’s civil and family chambers practice working group. It aims to enhance timeliness and efficiency in the chambers process.
The group sought feedback from bar members, litigants, organizations, and the public in July. Over a hundred submissions were received from lawyers, paralegals, legal assistants, self-represented litigants, law firms, and organizations representing legal professionals.
Comments indicated that reforms to processes would improve bookings, drive timely hearings, and enhance the use of chambers time.
Long chambers
In particular, respondents reported the difficulty of securing hearing dates for applications of over two hours. Supreme Court Scheduling was difficult to reach via the existing call in system, and the number of available dates was lacking; respondents indicated that the system favored larger firms with more staff and resources.
In general, respondents said hearing dates should be set in accordance with urgency and priority. They backed the adoption of a priority system, half-day bookings, and increasing judge availability to hear long chambers. Respondents also supported the judicial management of complex long chambers applications.
They did not support scheduling Vancouver on the assize.
Regular chambers
Respondents also highlighted overbooked chambers lists for applications of two hours or less. They also pointed out the inefficiencies and the costs of waiting for a matter to be called. The inefficiency of regular chambers was flagged as well.
Respondents supported stronger rule enforcement consistent with the right to be heard and the resolution of disputes on merit. They backed setting page limits for notices of application and application responses, while increasing the limit for long chambers. Moreover, they supported removing serial affidavits and mandating proper legal bases in notices of application and application responses.
Respondents supported the advanced publication of a chambers list to facilitate the scheduling of applications by parties. Moreover, they backed restricting the number of hours or matters to be heard on a given day. They pitched permitting counsel to appear at designated times, setting time blocks for certain matters, prioritizing bumped applications, and lengthening court hours.
Respondents’ feedback on limiting regular chambers to matters of one hour maximum was mixed, with backing being dependent on judge availability for long chambers. Moreover, some regarded the implementation of time slots for regular chambers as predictable if time estimates are enforced; however, others were concerned about limiting flexibility and wasting chambers time for matters that do not proceed.
Proposed solutions
The court indicated in its consultation notice that it intended to roll out an online booking system for long chambers. The system will monitor unsuccessful booking requests and prioritize a user’s subsequent request.
The initiative has been funded and the system set for implementation by early 2026.
Respondents’ proposals to bolster regular chambers’ efficiency included:
- Triaging applications before proceeding (screening for urgency, compliance with the rules, and readiness)
- Establishing a separate online chambers for uncontested and short matters
- Increasing desk orders’ speed and breadth
- Determining more applications on written submissions, subject to the discretion of the presider to require a hearing in chambers
- Authorizing the registrar to decide matters like applications for short leave, fee waivers, adjournments, and applications’ reinstatement to the hearing list
- Opening chambers earlier, imposing an earlier deadline for check-in, or developing a means for counsel to check-in online
Respondents backed province-wide virtual chambers for uncontested applications and consent orders. They also supported a broader approach to virtual hearings although perspectives varied on scope.
Respondents supported the Associate Judges Chambers Pilot Project’s expansion. Some backed the establishment of specialized chambers for civil, family or foreclosure matters, uncontested matters and consent orders, and matters where a litigant is self-represented.
Respondents supported prioritizing urgent family applications and addressing the heightened need for greater assistance and support for self-represented litigants before court and in chambers.
Support for restricting application record size and the number of case authorities was mixed given that applications have different lengths and complexities. Nonetheless, respondents widely backed reforms to costs awards such as consistent awards payable forthwith; more lump sum costs awards; and increasing the civil tariff.
Respondents recommended having presiders canvassing time estimates with parties at the outset of a hearing, terminating the hearing if the time estimate is exceeded, having timers in courtrooms, and settings costs consequences. Nonetheless, some respondents expressed concern that strict rule enforcement could impede the interests of justice.
